Will potting angles change with the use of stun, follow or screw?

[pottr]

But going back once again to the original post, the potting angle doesn't change when striking the cue ball up and down the vertical centre unless of course you bounce the cue ball on an angled pot, get a kick or don't cue straight.

Even then, the angle of the pot doesn't change...

Those external factors will cause the ball to miss... meaning it's an entirely different angle the OB takes to the angle required for the pot.

The angle of the pot is always a straight line from the object ball, to the pocket. ALWAYS

Now.. if you're talking about the line of the shot... well then, that's entirely different, but ONLY when you play with side (provided you cue straight) Follow through, stun and screw are along the vertical access, hence no deviation required on the line of the shot.

[tomwalker147]

Channel 5 superstar who has just been given Russian citizenship? Some pool player too, I'd let him win wouldn't want to risk a beating!

VMax lovely response, i'm looking forward to Big Shot's reply though .

[ace man]

I'm confused. Is he right or wrong? You started out by saying he's right, then ended with saying he's wrong, but that's right anyway.

So, do potting angles change depending on how you play the shot or not?

Potting angles do change slightly depending on conditions and type of hit.
But for all practical purposes, they are the same. If there are a few degrees difference, so what, they're the same. Players brain will adapt and adjust intuitively. Better to keep the game as simple as possible. Why have needless thoughts? Not sure how else to explain it.

[pottr]

Potting angles do change slightly depending on conditions and type of hit.

I think you're confusing 'line of aim' with the 'angle of the pot'

Is you're half snookered and you swerve a ball around another to pot a ball... The line of aim drastically alters but the angle of the pot is a mathematical constant.

[ace man]

What do you mean this isn't science? Balls are balls. Tables are tables. Side is side. Results are results.

You need to get some consistency to your thought processes- you're all over the place on this one.

Dear Mr. Big. what results? Dr Dave video that you posted a link off shows some experiments which happen to work on his home table.
It isn't a scientific experiment by any means because a human player is striking the ball. It should be a machine. There are no numbers, no math. He didn't even mention Newtons 3rd law, frictions...etc. Need I go on?
You cannot seriously believe that such videos can be valuable instruction material. Even to pool players.

[vmax4steve]

Potting angles do change slightly depending on conditions and type of hit.
But for all practical purposes, they are the same. If there are a few degrees difference, so what, they're the same. Players brain will adapt and adjust intuitively. Better to keep the game as simple as possible. Why have needless thoughts? Not sure how else to explain it.

Nick Barrow showed this with his potting machine, an eye opener for me, so I tried to play all my shots a little bit thinner at my next practise, couldn't work it out the margin was so small, went back to natural aiming and they started going in again.

[acesinc]

First of all this isn't science. The effects he describes are there, but they will be heavily dependent on conditions, table type, cloth, clean/dirty balls...etc.
What he did was give some acronyms for effects that are intuitively known to players since the dawn of cue sports.
Such heavy usage of acronyms is an American thing, is it not?

Dear Mr. Big. what results? Dr Dave video that you posted a link off shows some experiments which happen to work on his home table.
It isn't a scientific experiment by any means because a human player is striking the ball. It should be a machine. There are no numbers, no math. He didn't even mention Newtons 3rd law, frictions...etc. Need I go on?
You cannot seriously believe that such videos can be valuable instruction material. Even to pool players.

Careful here please, Ace Man. As perhaps one of the very few American born snooker players in existence (everyone else I have met in the USA is either a pool to snooker convert or a pool player that plays a little snooker on the side), I still have tremendous respect for Dr. Dave and his methodology. He is of the highest caliber and integrity as an investigator and as a person so anyone who has a negative word for him is speaking out of turn. He has done little to no investigation into the specifics of snooker but that is due to American culture, not himself or his knowledge base.

All that said, I agree that as a general rule, pool players are funny....they try to explain simple concepts with complex mathematical and scientific formulas. I find that pool players on a snooker table can easily take a minute, minute-and-a-half to assess and execute a simple 5 to 10 second standard shot. Probably all that analysis they have going on in their heads.

[VillaGuy]

Careful here please, Ace Man. As perhaps one of the very few American born snooker players in existence (everyone else I have met in the USA is either a pool to snooker convert or a pool player that plays a little snooker on the side), I still have tremendous respect for Dr. Dave and his methodology. He is of the highest caliber and integrity as an investigator and as a person so anyone who has a negative word for him is speaking out of turn. He has done little to no investigation into the specifics of snooker but that is due to American culture, not himself or his knowledge base.

All that said, I agree that as a general rule, pool players are funny....they try to explain simple concepts with complex mathematical and scientific formulas. I find that pool players on a snooker table can easily take a minute, minute-and-a-half to assess and execute a simple 5 to 10 second standard shot. Probably all that analysis they have going on in their heads.

This is just Americans in general I think, if you're in the US and pick up a newspaper and go through the sports sections all you see is statistical analysis, it's a totally different way of reporting.

[ace man]

I think you're confusing 'line of aim' with the 'angle of the pot'

Is you're half snookered and you swerve a ball around another to pot a ball... The line of aim drastically alters but the angle of the pot is a mathematical constant.

I know what you mean. But they are talking about actual collision and object ball path after that contact. Path will for sure differ a lot if say there is a kick involved. Of course potting angle will always look the same visually.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I knew this would happen. Guy comes on here to ask if topspin or stun/screw will change the potting angle. Boom! 4 page argument about sidespin and who's better at pool, bang on topic.

Lol. Sore losers around here.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I PM'd him yesterday with an apology saying exactly the same.

So, you've misled him in open AND in private?

Bravo!

[ace man]

Careful here please, Ace Man. As perhaps one of the very few American born snooker players in existence (everyone else I have met in the USA is either a pool to snooker convert or a pool player that plays a little snooker on the side), I still have tremendous respect for Dr. Dave and his methodology. He is of the highest caliber and integrity as an investigator and as a person so anyone who has a negative word for him is speaking out of turn. He has done little to no investigation into the specifics of snooker but that is due to American culture, not himself or his knowledge base.

All that said, I agree that as a general rule, pool players are funny....they try to explain simple concepts with complex mathematical and scientific formulas. I find that pool players on a snooker table can easily take a minute, minute-and-a-half to assess and execute a simple 5 to 10 second standard shot. Probably all that analysis they have going on in their heads.

acesinc, I never said that all his videos are bad. Just the ones with acronyms.
As for pool players being strange...perhaps you mean those who post online only and don't really play that often. Good players, be they snooker or pool players have dedicated almost their entire life to the game.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The problem is biggie you don't prove anything, you link to pool videos that you 'believe' in, super slo mo showing a miniscule amount of side being transfered to the object ball on contact and you 'believe' that this makes a difference to a pot into a five inch wide pocket six feet away, and we all know that you can hit the cushion two feet before the five inch wide pocket and still make the pot.

Meanwhile us snooker players are playing every day/week on tables with a pronounced nap on the cloth and knocking in the balls. What we do know is that when we put a quick one in, decelerate, move on the stroke, then we cue across the ball, impart a little side and miss the pot; what we also know is that when we want to use side we adjust our aim accordingly and 'voila' the pot goes in even though we aimed to miss it.

The 'they' I was referring to is the commentators, the ex pros and world champions who use terminology like 'turn the red over' when using side to pot a ball that is partially blocked by another. Put a cue in their hands and they can do it despite not knowing what's going on in the world of physics, and you knew this very well, just wanted to antagonise us snooker players, which is your MO and your whole reason to be on this forum.

I heard Hendry say when a player was wanting to split the pack off the yellow, "What he's doing is playing with left hand side, aiming the yellow to hit the cushion just before the near jaw" what he didn't do is go into the physics of spinning balls, inertia, friction correlation and the relationship between that and the cloth conditions because it just isn't neccessary.

But going back once again to the original post, the potting angle doesn't change when striking the cue ball up and down the vertical centre unless of course you bounce the cue ball on an angled pot, get a kick or don't cue straight.

Oh yes it does!

So, to sum up a lot of empty hot air, you realise the cue ball deflects (which you refer to as throw), then swerves, but you don't know about what happens when balls collide, which the rest of cue sports calls throw. Fine.

Ignorance is bliss, i hear, but that is no reason to mislead. This is not a subject open to debate. Change the laws of physics if you can; we'll look on with interest.

Next up: why the earth is actually flat.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Potting angles do change slightly depending on conditions and type of hit.
But for all practical purposes, they are the same. If there are a few degrees difference, so what, they're the same. Players brain will adapt and adjust intuitively. Better to keep the game as simple as possible. Why have needless thoughts? Not sure how else to explain it.

It's easy. Let me try for you.

Yes, side spin affects the potting angle (so does stun etc, but one step at a time, eh?)
No, you don't need to know these things if you practice enough (although there are certain times where a bit of knowledge is useful).

There, everyone happy now? Good.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Careful here please, Ace Man. As perhaps one of the very few American born snooker players in existence (everyone else I have met in the USA is either a pool to snooker convert or a pool player that plays a little snooker on the side), I still have tremendous respect for Dr. Dave and his methodology. He is of the highest caliber and integrity as an investigator and as a person so anyone who has a negative word for him is speaking out of turn. He has done little to no investigation into the specifics of snooker but that is due to American culture, not himself or his knowledge base.

All that said, I agree that as a general rule, pool players are funny....they try to explain simple concepts with complex mathematical and scientific formulas. I find that pool players on a snooker table can easily take a minute, minute-and-a-half to assess and execute a simple 5 to 10 second standard shot. Probably all that analysis they have going on in their heads.

What dr Dave and his team do, which includes a national snooker champion btw, is demonstrate and prove things that players with keen eyes have noticed for decades. There is nothing new here, nothing controversial.

All demonstrable and provable. And, as Dave says repeatedly, if you think they are wrong, or their experiments can be improved upon, let him know and he will shake your hand.

So, off you go, you 30 break heroes!